Collective Anxiety: Our Similarities Are Stronger Than Our Differences
by Elisabeth Joy LaMotte, LICSW
“Is Trump Anxiety Disorder real?”
A Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reporter called in July to ask me this question. He was surveying therapists’ perspectives on university research identifying a pattern of symptoms specific to individuals unsettled by the President. The reporter reached out to me because of a piece I wrote for The Washington Post describing how my therapy clients are struggling with news obsession and how even couples sharing the same political views are fighting about their media consumption.
I explained that I had never heard of “Trump Anxiety Disorder” and so I could not determine its validity as a psychiatric diagnosis. I also explained that I practice social work near the one precinct in Washington, DC, that consistently votes Republican, and that my therapy practice is bipartisan. If there is such a thing as “Trump Anxiety Disorder,” I explained, I am neither well-placed nor interested to become an expert in its recognition or treatment.
Instead, I said, what I observe in my social work practice is a collective anxiety shared by therapy clients in both political parties. Many Democrats express agitation and fear about the current state of political affairs, and they often report heightened generalized anxiety. They also describe anxiety about increasing divisiveness in the media and simultaneous difficulty stepping away from their newsfeeds. Meanwhile, many Republican clients describe feeling alienated by family and friends who disagree with their political views. Conservatives who agree with many of the President’s policy initiatives often express discomfort with his tactics and report comparable levels of heightened anxiety.
I explained my view that Americans consciously and unconsciously look to our President as a psychological parent figure. We may model our leader’s behaviors and hope (or expect) to turn to presidential leadership for guidance and comfort during traumatic world events like terrorist attacks, mass shootings, and major hurricanes. Because President Trump’s leadership style does not conform to typical parental rules, I have noticed a shared level of heightened anxiety as citizens struggle to adjust to this dramatic shift.
I was quoted accurately in the resulting CBC article and felt comfortable with the story. It referenced the researchers who coined the term “Trump Anxiety Disorder” and quoted my observations along with comments of other practicing therapists. The article was widely read, including in the United States. I received a fair number of emails from readers, even though the article did not provide my contact information. Some were positive, most were negative, but this initial response didn’t feel surprising or extreme.
One day later, however, my email inbox and voicemail suddenly flooded with raging messages. The shortest, most direct comment simply read: “Go die [expletive]!” I soon discovered that Fox News had published an edited version of the CBC story on their website, which brought the story to the attention of new readers.
Some messages were threatening. Others accused me of making up a fake psychiatric diagnosis and of being part of a greater societal problem. This felt stressful -- and ironic -- considering how I had pushed back with the CBC reporter and questioned the concept of “Trump Anxiety Disorder.” I received requests to be interviewed on Russian television programs and various radio outlets affiliated with conservative media. I was invited as a guest on the Fox News show Watter’s World to talk about TAD. I declined, suggesting that the host reach out to the researchers who coined the phrase under discussion.
The revised story on the Fox News website quoted me accurately. However, the story had been edited in a manner that led many readers to conclude not only that I coined the phrase “Trump Anxiety Disorder,” but also that I was trying to use it as a catch phrase to promote my therapy practice.
I felt unsettled by the tone of many of the messages, but I understood why some readers felt offended. Nevertheless, I was shocked that so many people took the time to look me up and target me with vitriol. I took my husband’s advice and avoided Twitter and Facebook altogether.
An important principle of couples therapy using a systemic model is that each participant is encouraged to respond to anger with respect and curiosity rather than defensiveness or volatility. I felt defensive about the amount of virtual venom flying in my direction, but I wanted to address it in a productive way. I deleted the messages calling me expletives. But I began respectfully responding to most of the emails asking the senders if they had read the original article by the CBC and highlighted my statements that heightened levels of anxiety are shared by people of many different viewpoints and perspectives. I expressed appreciation for the many valid points expressed in the flood of feedback I received.
One especially articulate email correspondent wrote that people should stop whining and watch a good movie. I replied by describing my sincere belief in the value of cinema-therapy, and I referenced research demonstrating measurable therapeutic value in prescriptive film viewing. I exchanged several emails with this fellow film lover and now consider her a virtual friend.
Many emails expressed years of anxiety related to Obama’s leadership. For example, one reader explained that he felt nauseous and anxious throughout Obama’s presidency and viewed the Obama era as a time when race relations deteriorated dramatically. I replied, acknowledging the isolation of the DC bubble and asking if Trump’s tweets raise his anxiety. He quickly responded, explaining he finds the tweets “buffoonish” and “immature,” but he appreciates Trump's honesty and directness.
I returned phone calls to people who left messages calling me a charlatan and a fraud. I felt humbled by how productive and respectful our telephone conversations became once we spoke. Many people did not respond to my messages. But every single person that I did reach thanked me for calling. The tenor of each conversation was calm and mutually respectful.
Many readers took issue with my sense that – whether it is conscious or not – we look to our President as a psychological parent. “LOL!” “Give me a break!” It’s easy to imagine how people may have difficulty with this proposition. I began developing this impression in 2001. Many of my therapy clients who voted for Gore described taking tremendous comfort in George W. Bush’s leadership in the days following the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001. When I shared this memory with a reader, she sighed and shared that she remembered feeling the same way at the time.
In light of the passing of George H.W. Bush, which has highlighted the erosion of public discourse over the past 25 years, it feels inadequate to join the common lament about the passing of a more dignified era. It is up to all of us to turn collective anxiety into something more productive and more meaningful.
Adolescent rebellion is a necessary hallmark of puberty as teenagers prepare to launch into adulthood. Wouldn’t it be interesting if people experiencing collective anxiety rebelled against the current political climate -- just as children rebel against their real parents -- by insisting on a more respectful, civilized, open-minded dialogue? My experience conversing with a number of people about the CBC story taught me what many fellow social workers already know - our similarities are usually stronger and more meaningful than our differences.
In welcoming the New Year, I welcome this version of a collective rebellion.
Elisabeth Joy LaMotte, LICSW, is a social worker and founder of the DC Counseling and Psychotherapy Center. She is the author of Overcoming Your Parents' Divorce and an active media contributor.